103 Ind. 575 | Ind. | 1885
The material averments of the appellants’ complaint, exhibited in a condensed form, are these: On the 1st day of March, 1880, a petition was presented to the board of commissioners praying for the‘establishment of a free gravel road; no action was taken on this petition until the June term, 1881; at that time three viewers and a surveyor were appointed and ordered to meet on the 22d day of August, 1881; it was also ordered that the auditor give notice of the time and place fixed for such meeting, and that the viewers should make a report at the term of the commissioners’ court following their meeting. The viewers did not meet at the time appointed, nor did they meet until October, 1881, and, instead of making the report, as directed, at the June term, 1881, they appeared, asked and obtained a continuance. No report was made at the December term, 1881, but, on the 9th day of that month, a report was prepared, and, on the 13th day of the same month, filed with the auditor. The plaintiffs had no notice of the time and place of meeting of the viewers and could not ascertain when they proposed to view the lands sought to be assessed, nor did the plaintiffs know at what time the viewers would make their report. On the 22d day of March, 1882, the report was submitted to the board and was approved; viewers were then appointed to view the lands and make assessments. At the same session the auditor was directed to give notice when the report of the viewers last appointed should be filed. On the 14th day of April, 1882, the contract for constructing the road was let, and an order made directing the issue of the bonds of the county to the amount of $16,000. The viewers were directed to meet on the 15th' day of May, 1882, and take an oath or affirmation to faithfully perform their duties. The viewers did not enter upon or view any of the lands of
We do not concur with appellants’ counsel that the delay in acting upon the petition renders the proceedings void. The plaintiffs were not injuriously affected by the delay, for they were not required to take notice of the petition until notified in the manner provided by law. If the delay had occurred after they were brought in by notice, a more serious question would arise.
The failure of the viewers and surveyor to meet at the time ■appointed presents a serious question. Of the time appointed for the meeting the statute imperatively requires that notice shall be given, and notice is always a fundamental requisite to the validity of such proceedings as those described in the complaint. The statute also provides that “ It shall be the ■duty of the said viewers and surveyor or engineer to meet at the time and place specified by said commissioners.” R. S. 1881, sections 5092, 5093.
We regard the publication of notice as essential to the validity of the proceedings, for unquestionably it is a jurisdictional matter. If the notice is essential, then a proceeding that frustrates its purpose and renders it fruitless can not be valid. The purpose of a notice is to afford a party his day in court, and to give him a hearing upon the matter upon which an action of a judicial character is to be taken.
If the viewers and the surveyor do not meet at the time designated, the notice subserves no useful purpose; quite as well have no notice at all as to permit the viewers to disregard it and hold their meeting at a time different from that designated in the notice. The land-owners Avere not bound
The failure to give notice is not a mere irregularity; it is a failure to do the thing that authorizes any action by the viewers. The notice is essential to their authority; without it they have no power to take a single step. If they meet at a time different from that specified in the notice, they meet without authority, and lacking authority they can do no valid act as against land-owners who may be affected by their action. Such a case as this is not within the decisions in Cauldwell v. Curry, 93 Ind. 363, and cases of that character, for the reason that the want of notice is not a mere irregularity.
The case is not within the rule declared in Brown v. Goble, 97 Ind. 86; Stout v. Woods, 79 Ind. 108; McAlpine v.
This case is to be carefully discriminated from cases where notice is given of the filing of the petition, for in such cases the notice given upon the filing of the petition will confer jurisdiction, and irregularities in subsequent proceedings would not make the proceedings void. Here, the notice which first brings the land-owners into court is that provided for by section 5092, and if that notice is not given, or
Counsel for appellees says, that the Legislature has power to prescribe the kind of notice that shall be given, and refers us to Scott v. Brackett, 89 Ind. 413; Wade Law of Notice, 21; Cooley Const. Law (5th ed.), 499; Cupp v. Board, etc., 19 Ohio St. 173, 182. We agree with counsel upon this proposition, but no benefit can be secured from it by the appellees. This we say, because the question is not as to the power of the Legislature, but as to the power of viewers who have wholly disregarded the order and notice which invested them with all the authority they possessed.
We do not question the decisions in the cases of Coolman v. Fleming, 82 Ind. 117, Muncey v. Joest, supra, Million v. Board, etc., 89 Ind. 5, that the board of commissioners has general jurisdiction of the subject of free gravel roads. On the contrary, we affirm as we have often done, that these cases assert the true rule, but they do not bear upon this case, for here the point is that there was no jurisdiction of the person. Jurisdiction of the person is as essential as jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and that jurisdiction did not exist in this instance.
This case is radically different from cases where notice requisite to confer jurisdiction is given and jurisdiction attaches. In such cases the failure of the viewers to meet at the time appointed, or to report at the time designated, would not vitiate the proceedings. Nor would proceedings in such cases be erroneous if the time for meeting was changed by order of court. But the question here is very different from any that could arise in a case where jurisdiction had been acquired.
The viewers could have no legal existence as a quasi judicial tribunal except by meeting and qualifying in a legal manner.
If the viewers had met according to law, and the appellants had once been brought within the jurisdiction of the board of commissioners, a very different case would have been presented. We have, no doubt that parties once in court are bound to take notice of subsequent proceedings, and if they are irregular attack them by an appeal. But here the plaintiffs were not at any time in court, for the only notice which gave jurisdiction had spent its force, and the only way in which they could be required to again appear was by the giving of a new notice. The first notice was funetus officio, when the time for a legal organization of the committee of viewers expired without any action having been taken upon the notice. It can make no difference that only forty days after the time fixed by the notice the viewers did meet and organize, for the principle is the same whether the first meeting takes place forty days, forty months, or ten years after the appointed time.
Injunction will lie to restrain the collection of taxes where the proceedings of the board of commissioners are void. Fahlor v. Board, etc., supra; Bishop v. Moorman, 98 Ind. 1 (49 Am. R. 731); Brown v. Goble, supra; Columbus, etc., R. W. Co. v. Board, etc., supra.
Judgment reversed.